-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
1up interview with Phill Harrison (Madden 30fps, Wii)
- Thread starter rakka
- Start date
Zombie James
Banned
RSTEIN said:
So you're saying EA isn't lazy, they just decided to not put any effort into the PS3 version.
...wait, isn't that the same thing?
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
Phil Harrison=Teh voice of reason within Sony
RSTEIN said:
Every other developer!? Every other developer is not lazy, there are many who take advantage of PS3's strengths.
RSTEIN said:
Oh so they're not being lazy, they're just being money conscious... which, in the end, still means it's not PS3's fault, it's EA's fault for not spending a tiny bit extra out of their ridiculously huge sum of money to take slightly more advantage of Cell. Not to mention PS3 Madden sold even more than Wii Madden, and PS3 Madden is a port from 360 Madden which mitigates much of the cost!
_leech_ said:
No, I'm saying they made a business decision.
Let's say you open a refreshments stand at the site of the road. You can make two drinks. Drink #1 is lemonade. Everyone loves lemonade. The ingredients are cheap and easy to find. The drink tastes pretty good, too. Drink #2 is grape juice. There are people out there that like grape juice, but the market isn't as big as lemonade. Additionally, the ingredients for grape juice cost 1.5x lemonade's ingredients. Each drink sells at the same price.
So, you can make lemonade (more people like it, it's easier and cheaper to make, and you make a higher gross margin on each unit sold) or you can make grape juice (not as many people like it, more expensive to make, lower profit margin).
What do you do?
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
EA is not Lazy!!
All you have to do is play NBA Live '07 to see that is not the case!!!
*runs away*
All you have to do is play NBA Live '07 to see that is not the case!!!
*runs away*
Companies are never lazy, every decision is based on 2 limited resources, people and money, traded off against expected return.
A more valid argument is that EA has a business model that does not value product reputation as much as some of their competitors. Its like the difference between a Ford and a Mercedes. One's model is based on luxury and customer satisfaction to get buyers, the other's model is about flooding the market with utilitarian offerings. Neither is morally superior to the other.
A more valid argument is that EA has a business model that does not value product reputation as much as some of their competitors. Its like the difference between a Ford and a Mercedes. One's model is based on luxury and customer satisfaction to get buyers, the other's model is about flooding the market with utilitarian offerings. Neither is morally superior to the other.
dskillzhtown
keep your strippers out of my American football
Amir0x said:
Did Take Two do the same thing?
I think that "I'm trying to be polite" comment was a little irresponsible from someone in Phil's position.
Perhaps a better reply would've been "the PS3 is a new architecture, and it has only been in developers hands for a year. It is understandable that developers may be more experienced on a platform they've had for twice as long"
Perhaps a better reply would've been "the PS3 is a new architecture, and it has only been in developers hands for a year. It is understandable that developers may be more experienced on a platform they've had for twice as long"
It's not a case of laziness per se. It's a combination of EA's intense drive for profit and they won't put as much of a dev team on the PS3 as they would if Sony had sold more. I guess you could call that lazy, but in the end it's all about money.
I don't think you can call any dev at EA lazy, considering their well-documented work conditions. If Sony cared that much, they would send software engineers at EA to rectify the situation, but I guess they're lazy too, right? In the end, the game will still be very playable and if you're PS3-only, you're still getting the greatness that is Madden.
Once all of EA's teams are more familiar with the PS3, it won't take as much money and time to port games from the 360.
I don't think you can call any dev at EA lazy, considering their well-documented work conditions. If Sony cared that much, they would send software engineers at EA to rectify the situation, but I guess they're lazy too, right? In the end, the game will still be very playable and if you're PS3-only, you're still getting the greatness that is Madden.
Once all of EA's teams are more familiar with the PS3, it won't take as much money and time to port games from the 360.
Yeah that last comment was pretty irresponsible.
I could easily accuse Sony of being lazy for not sending 3rd parties documentation any earlier.
Especially considering when they again went an unorthodox route as far as architecture is concerned, it's extremely naive of them to think that developers could figure it out.
The ONLY good looking PS3 games are the ones where Sony directly assists them with getting the most out of Cell.
So to claim that any developer is lazy because they don't have the proper documentation and tools is absolute ridiculous.
I think we can all agree that hopefully, Peter Moore rips Phil a new asshole.
I could easily accuse Sony of being lazy for not sending 3rd parties documentation any earlier.
Especially considering when they again went an unorthodox route as far as architecture is concerned, it's extremely naive of them to think that developers could figure it out.
The ONLY good looking PS3 games are the ones where Sony directly assists them with getting the most out of Cell.
So to claim that any developer is lazy because they don't have the proper documentation and tools is absolute ridiculous.
I think we can all agree that hopefully, Peter Moore rips Phil a new asshole.
These "lazy developer" comments are getting really annoying and lame.
If PS3 games are turning in subpar performance despite the machine's theorical capabilities, there is only a single party to point fingers at, and that's Mr. Harrison's company. Software publishers can't be expected to engage in extended rounds of sado-masochism to turn performance out of a poorly architected system, with little support from teh platform holder.
Microsoft has a team dedicated to helping publishers optimize system performance. I don't see Phil doing anything to help other than tossing out snarky "I'm being polite" comments.
If PS3 games are turning in subpar performance despite the machine's theorical capabilities, there is only a single party to point fingers at, and that's Mr. Harrison's company. Software publishers can't be expected to engage in extended rounds of sado-masochism to turn performance out of a poorly architected system, with little support from teh platform holder.
Microsoft has a team dedicated to helping publishers optimize system performance. I don't see Phil doing anything to help other than tossing out snarky "I'm being polite" comments.
Rhindle said:
So because the cell is different that means its poorly architected system? I mean god forgive these developers have to learn something new. I don't complain that I have keep up with computer networking in a rapidly growing technological age. Pretty sure the PS3 has a team of developers to help games along, hell I believe that team was called in to help with UT3.
Mustaphadamus
Member
dirt runs much better on ps3 than the 360. So just seems to be a developer issue.Rhindle said:
Zombie James
Banned
Rhindle said:
Yea, i'm sure Factor 5, Insomniac, Ninja Theory, and Criterion are all foaming at the mouth with anger. Especially Ninja Theory. I mean, they go from making Kung Fu Chaos on the easy-to-develop-for Xbox to developing Heavenly Sword on the PS3. Just look how much the game's suffering:
They must be pissed.
Mustaphadamus said:
Was dirt released at the same time on the PS3/360?
This is all sonys doing they are the ones who did not have the tools up to par. You think devs really enjoy releasing down graded product? The only good news is sony is finally doing something about this with the edge tool set.
I'd wager the "I'm trying to be polite" comment is as much aimed at the attempts to make 30fps vs. 60fps a bigger deal than it is. Jeff Bell should be PMing Phil any minute.
And that's basically the same response he gave here. Whoever grows the market opens up opportunity for others. Which is not to say the pioneer is necessarily removed from the picture in the process..dmc said:
dskillzhtown
keep your strippers out of my American football
Kintaro said:
30fps on BOTH? I didn't know that.
This thread is funny. Alot of people who are calling out EA were calling out Sony when developers complained about not getting enough help. But now that the fruits of Sony's non-labor are out there, the developers get blamed. Well, EA is getting blamed. But around here, that is the norm.
KachoMakura
Banned
:lolAmir0x said:
Not sure what you're driving at. If you've got Sony writing you a $20 million check to develop a game, you're not going to do much complaining about the hardware._leech_ said:Yea, i'm sure Factor 5, Insomniac, Ninja Theory, and Criterion are all foaming at the mouth with anger. Especially Ninja Theory. I mean, they go from making Kung Fu Chaos on the easy-to-develop-for Xbox to developing Heavenly Sword on the PS3. Just look how much the game's suffering:
They must be pissed.
With an extra six months of development time, one would hope it would run better.
KachoMakura
Banned
Mustaphadamus said:
Actually it doesn't run "much" better. It has a slightly more stable framerate but certain graphical effects were turned off to achieve it.
Mustaphadamus
Member
Zombie James
Banned
Rhindle said:
And EA's not going to earn money from the PS3 version of Madden no matter how shitty they make it? That's the point i'm trying to make. Developers like Ninja Theory and Factor 5 are getting money from Sony, but EA already has a shitload of money and they're still going to profit from the PS3 versions of sports games they make. Lack of funds isn't an excuse.
Mustaphadamus
Member
remember when the ps3 first launched and games that came out on xbox 360 first looked better on the 360 than the ps3. People haha, ps3 am doomed.quest said:
fast forward and now the tools are in place and the ps3 versions are looking much better and now its something else. You guys crack me up.
Oh wait, I get it. You're one of those dudes who hang out at best buy and crap on the systems you don't like when people reach for the box don't you?
That's a load of BS, software publishers are in the bussiness of making quality products. When they are producing subpar quality relative to other products on the same platform, the problem is completely in their hands.Rhindle said:
And in case of EA it most certainly isn't lack of resources or manpower that is causing this - it's a direct result of their executive decisions.
I also fail to see where you get off on the likes of EA "needing" dedicated tech teams from Sony/MS to bail them out while the smaller developers are welcome to kill themselves over on their own because they aren't big enough to warrant support.
It's fine if you want to argue what makes strategic sense, but damage controlling for company with nearly unlimited resources having trouble producing quality products? Give me a break.
Karma Kramer
Banned
This situation reminds me of the Epic vs. SK lawsuit.
All of Epic's games look great and run great with UE3, yet all other developers are having problems. Is it Epic's fault or are all the other studios incompetent/lazy compared to Epic?
I would defiantly say that the responsibility lies on Sony to ensure developers can achieve maximum efficiency and power with the PS3, especially since the third parties don't really have an economic need to produce titles for the platform.
The PS2 was essentially just as problematic, but because of the huge market-share the PS2 garnered third parties really had no other choice but to make it work.
Sony better be careful because they no longer have that advantage over third parties and they could start losing them if they don't go the extra mile and ensure their satisfaction with the tools Sony is providing.
All of Epic's games look great and run great with UE3, yet all other developers are having problems. Is it Epic's fault or are all the other studios incompetent/lazy compared to Epic?
I would defiantly say that the responsibility lies on Sony to ensure developers can achieve maximum efficiency and power with the PS3, especially since the third parties don't really have an economic need to produce titles for the platform.
The PS2 was essentially just as problematic, but because of the huge market-share the PS2 garnered third parties really had no other choice but to make it work.
Sony better be careful because they no longer have that advantage over third parties and they could start losing them if they don't go the extra mile and ensure their satisfaction with the tools Sony is providing.
anotherworld
Banned
Maxwell House said:
they should of asked him "Phil why is the 360 madden 60fps"?:lol
HocusPocus
Member
I wonder what the reaction would have been if the 360 version of Madden had stayed at 30 FPS this year, and the PS3 had been 60 FPS. I doubt the developer would be blamed nearly as much as the hardware "gap" ahah.
My point wasn't "damage controlling" for EA, I could care less about EA. The point is that Harrison should have better and more constructive things to do than toss out veiled "lazy developers" comments. If third parties are having trouble getting performance from his platform, that's both their problem AND his problem.Fafalada said:
Exactly.
Fafalada said:
If sonys tools were up to the job everyone would not need help. I don't see any 3rd party developers struggling on the 360.
It is not just EA it is basically every 3rd party up till now. Either the PS3 version is a down grade or delayed for months. If it was just EA sure blame them but it is every multiconsole developer.